User avatar
cosyr
Topic Author
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:06 am

Next year United begins to receive its first 789's and we keep describing the 787's as a replacement for the 763's and for expansion. However, I was comparing the specs, and given how the 788's are arranged, it seems that the 789's will have almost identical seating capacity to the sCO 772's, nearly the same cargo capacity, greater range, and with a lower max takeoff weight, must mean much more fuel efficient. So the question is, why will the 789's not replace the 777's? What advantages do the 777's have?

Are they just holding off on ordering more, to see whether the 787's or the A350's will make a better 777 replacement? What happens when Boeing increases the MTOW and makes a 789ER? Or do we believe that UA will cave and put 10 abreast in the 772's?
 
Prost
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:20 am

Just because an aircraft has similar capacity and capability, doesn't mean you dump the old aircraft to replace with new aircraft.

Its true that some international carriers keep aircraft for a shorter duration than US carriers, but there is still life left in those older frames. Different business models, as well as different depreciation cycles.
 
AA737-823
Posts: 4888
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:39 am

I think your question is, "Why are the 787s replacing 767s and not 777?"

To which I'd say that the 767-300 birds are older, less efficient aircraft than the 777, which is still pretty much up-to-date.

Continental was taking 772's up until, what, 2008? 2009? Whereas UA's 763s are a bit older, and for some of them, 'tis time to go.

Ultimately, I firmly believe that the 777-200 will be replaced by a mix of the 787-9 and the 787-10. The A350 will turn out to be too much airplane for many 777 routes, and will instead be a much better fit on 747 routes.
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:12 am

Quoting cosyr (Thread starter):
it seems that the 789's will have almost identical seating capacity to the sCO 772's

That unfortunately says a lot about the reduced seating comfort of the 789.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:28 am

United said the A350 will replace the 747 while the 787 will replace the 767 and at a later stage the 777 too.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:04 am

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 3):
That unfortunately says a lot about the reduced seating comfort of the 789.

The 789 cabin is 2 feet shorter (0.6m) then the 772, that should not present any big diffs in comfort with a modern cabin layout. What is more important the between first and last door distance is 42.4m vs 42.8m ie a negligible 0.4m diff. I would say as long as both are 9 abreast the 772 has a bit wider seats but that is all, no more legroom really.

If you are normal weight they are the same, they are not the same in fuel burn however (90 vs 118t  Wow! when both fly their max 8000nm legs) and the 789 carries more cargo (4 LD3 more).
Non French in France
 
parapente
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:45 am

Reply 3
That unfortunately says a lot about the reduced seating comfort of the 789.
Reply 5
both are 9 abreast the 772 has a bit wider seats

A Bit!!!! I guess you have not flown on a X9 777. The 787 was (initially) marketed at an X8 aircraft.

recently flew back from Nairobi on Emirates.X10 777 and A380. Even my children commented on the massive difference in seats/comfort and they are not full grown!

If seat width did not matter then the XWB concept will fail (perhaps it will - who knows).

I do accept that it is "the way things are going", that passengers are and will have to put up with uncomfortable flights in the name of profit - because they will.But it is a meaningful loss to consumers- no doubt about that (IMHO anyway).
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 2:32 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 6):
I guess you have not flown on a X9 777. The 787 was (initially) marketed at an X8 aircraft.

Yes I have but I have now flown a 9 abreast 788, have you? I don't think you can compare that difference to a A380 (the widest Y there is in longhaul ) vs. a 777 10 abreast ( the narrowest Y there is in longhaul).
Non French in France
 
codc10
Posts: 1750
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:20 pm

The introduction of the 787-10 will likely be contemporaneous with UA's first 777 retirements. On the other hand, as 787-9s begin to arrive, the oldest 763ERs will start to be phased out.

UAL isn't trying to do a one-for-one replacement with the existing fleet, but is moving toward a rationalized WB fleet with varying capacities at similar CASM to allow a higher degree of seasonal swaps. All part of the strategy to shift capacity to demand.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1865
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:05 pm

While UA won't be targeting one 777 for retirement when a 789 arrives, I think it reasonable to expect we will see the 789 take over for the 777 on some routes quickly once a handful arrive.

These a/c will have a similar seating arrangement to the three class 777 and will rotate onto some of the longer routes such as LAX/SFO to Australia (SYD and/or BNE and/or MEL), EWR to HKG etc. The a/c type may vary depending on seasonal demand as well.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:46 pm

The 787-9 will have similar (a bit lower) seat count to the 777 and has lower operating costs. However the 777 is still lower than the 767 which is the plane that needs to go.

UA has not replaced planes one for one in regards to capacity. The 767-200s were replaced with 767-300s (capacity gain). The 757-200s are being replaced by 737-900ERs (capacity loss). 757-300s replaced 767-300s to Hawaii (capacity loss). In general, UA has such a big fleet that a new plane entering the fleet does not have to match the capacity of the plane exiting. They have so many different fleet types to shift around that there shouldn’t be much of a problem. For the most part 787-8s are being used to replace 777-200 type routes.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
jayunited
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:39 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 8):
The introduction of the 787-10 will likely be contemporaneous with UA's first 777 retirements. On the other hand, as 787-9s begin to arrive, the oldest 763ERs will start to be phased out.

UAL isn't trying to do a one-for-one replacement with the existing fleet, but is moving toward a rationalized WB fleet with varying capacities at similar CASM to allow a higher degree of seasonal swaps. All part of the strategy to shift capacity to demand.

  

The 787-9 is not slated as the replacement for UA's 777-200's, UA has 20 787-10's on order and when those aircraft start arriving according to what UA said earlier this year that is when the oldest sUA 777-200 retirements will begin. Will some 787-9's take over some flying currently being done by 777 yes that is likely but UA is not retiring any 777's until 787-10's start arriving.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 10):
For the most part 787-8s are being used to replace 777-200 type routes.

The only reason UA is using the 788 on routes typically flown by 772ER is because the yield of some of these routes are horrible. If you take for example LAX-NRT/PVG UA had no problem filling the 777 the demand is their for daily 777 service the problem was the yields were low. With high demand but low yield UA decided that the 788 is the better aircraft for the route as a way to increase the yield. IAH-LOS route was originally slated to launched with the 787 but CO could no longer delay the flight and decided to launch it with the 772ER instead now the route is being flown with the 787. This route is about capacity not yield, the 787 has the right capacity for this route So you can't just say 788's are being used to replace 772ER because it's not that simple in certain markets.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Topic Author
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:30 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 8):
The introduction of the 787-10 will likely be contemporaneous with UA's first 777 retirements.

The timing may align, but I don't thing the 7810 with have the same range as the sCO 772's. EWR-HKG and LAX-SYD would be out of the 787-10's range if I understand correctly.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 9):
These a/c will have a similar seating arrangement to the three class 777 and will rotate onto some of the longer routes such as LAX/SFO to Australia (SYD and/or BNE and/or MEL), EWR to HKG etc. The a/c type may vary depending on seasonal demand as well.

I hope that is also the introduction of a new F/J product. I like the sCO J seats a lot, and I don't think they 'need' to be replaced, though they are starting to lag behind AA/US/DL physical products. But they might be a little redundant with sUA's F seats, which is why UA adopted their J seats that had middle seats, to keep a desparity, and justification for further upgrading. Given the restrictions on the 772's, I don't think you could fit 8 abreast sUA J seats on the 787. Since they seem to be in pairs automatically, I don't think 7 abreast would be possible either, so it seams either sUA F/sCO J, or something entirely new for both. Personally, I don't think we'll see as many 3 class 787's as they previously said.
 
codc10
Posts: 1750
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:47 pm

Quoting cosyr (Reply 12):

The timing may align, but I don't thing the 7810 with have the same range as the sCO 772's. EWR-HKG and LAX-SYD would be out of the 787-10's range if I understand correctly.

Both routes will be at the high end of the 787-10's range, but within the airplane's capability. Boeing is projecting a typical mission profile of approximately 6800 to 7000nm, and EWR-HKG is 7009nm. By comparison, the 787-9 will be much longer-legged, at about 8000-8500nm.

Quoting cosyr (Reply 12):
I hope that is also the introduction of a new F/J product. I like the sCO J seats a lot, and I don't think they 'need' to be replaced, though they are starting to lag behind AA/US/DL physical products.

This is in the works.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:53 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 13):
Both routes will be at the high end of the 787-10's range, but within the airplane's capability. Boeing is projecting a typical mission profile of approximately 6800 to 7000nm, and EWR-HKG is 7009nm.

Not entirely correct because the range given by aircraft manufacturers is very optimistic (without headwinds, without cargo, without water and food etc). For widebody jets, you usually have to cut off 500 to 1000nm of the given range. So a typical 787-10 config won't make EWR-HKG (unless you fill it with only 250 pax and no cargo).
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:04 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 13):
and EWR-HKG is 7009nm
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
So a typical 787-10 config won't make EWR-HKG (unless you fill it with only 250 pax and no cargo).

I'd say EWR-HKG is a prime 35J market.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1865
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:08 pm

I think the recent push to have frequent fliers come and review some new First and Business products at UA had to do with upgrading their product in time for the introduction of the 789 followed by the 781 and 35J.

The 789 would be ideal for the EWR to HKG route as well as India in terms of range. Once the 35Js arrive, UA can evaluate whether the routes warrant upgauging.

These new a/c have amazing capabilities which will give UA the flexibility they need to go from ~260-320 seats on their routes depending on demand.
 
codc10
Posts: 1750
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:11 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):


Not entirely correct because the range given by aircraft manufacturers is very optimistic (without headwinds, without cargo, without water and food etc). For widebody jets, you usually have to cut off 500 to 1000nm of the given range. So a typical 787-10 config won't make EWR-HKG (unless you fill it with only 250 pax and no cargo).

The exact range figures for the 787-10 are not available since the configuration has not been firmed. Still, 7000nm is not advertised as max range, but instead offered as a typical stage length, with New York-Hong Kong being a specific example. Therefore, I would expect the max range to be 7500-8000nm, with a 7000nm sector being comfortably within the aircraft's range with a profitable load.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4953
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:34 pm

Quoting cosyr (Thread starter):
it seems that the 789's will have almost identical seating capacity to the sCO 772's, nearly the same cargo capacity, greater range, and with a lower max takeoff weight, must mean much more fuel efficient. So the question is, why will the 789's not replace the 777's? What advantages do the 777's have?

At 13hrs the 77E has a payload edge over the 789 of about 4 to 5t but as Ferpe points out, at a significant fuel burn disadvantage With UA's lower MTOW 's for the 77E there may be nothing in it payload wise.

[Edited 2013-08-19 12:39:31]
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:37 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 17):
The exact range figures for the 787-10 are not available since the configuration has not been firmed. Still, 7000nm is not advertised as max range, but instead offered as a typical stage length, with New York-Hong Kong being a specific example. Therefore, I would expect the max range to be 7500-8000nm, with a 7000nm sector being comfortably within the aircraft's range with a profitable load.

All specified ranges (788, 789, A350, etc) by the manufacturer are for a typical mission with a 3-class configuration. However, all are without a realistic cabin configuration thus will have a shorter range in the real world.

The 787-10 has been launched with a typical range of 6800-7000nm in a 3-class cabin configuration with 323 pax (check the Boeing website). The plane will have the same MTOW, same fuel capacity and will be heavier than the 789 so it is impossible to fly it 8000nm with 300+ pax. It will not even fly 7000nm with a comfortable margin.

If you want to fly it 8000nm, you will have to strip something like 50 or more seats, which would make it like a heavy 789.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1865
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:09 pm

Boeing and Airbus both love to pad and fluff to give their product an edge and something that can be all things to all airlines. I just don't see the 787-10 doing a EWR to HKG sector. This could go to the 789 from the 77E until the 35J arrives but not the 787-10.

For the 787-10, routes such as LAX or SFO to LHR or FRA would work (roughly 5,100 nm). Perhaps EWR to NRT would work as well though that route is over 5,800nm which would be pushing things.

The configuration of the a/c will of course affect range as will the weather. Flying an a/c such as the 35J and 789 should take the range worry out for most of UA's routes.
 
codc10
Posts: 1750
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:40 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 19):
All specified ranges (788, 789, A350, etc) by the manufacturer are for a typical mission with a 3-class configuration. However, all are without a realistic cabin configuration thus will have a shorter range in the real world.

The 787-10 has been launched with a typical range of 6800-7000nm in a 3-class cabin configuration with 323 pax (check the Boeing website). The plane will have the same MTOW, same fuel capacity and will be heavier than the 789 so it is impossible to fly it 8000nm with 300+ pax. It will not even fly 7000nm with a comfortable margin.

If you want to fly it 8000nm, you will have to strip something like 50 or more seats, which would make it like a heavy 789.

Why, then, would Boeing advertise New York to Hong Kong as a typical city pair for the 787-10? The truth is, we do not know what the aircraft's max range will be because the aircraft's configuration (not seating layout) is not yet firm. Moreover, the projected Boeing configuration is an extremely dense 323 seats. In practice, the 787-10 will likely be somewhere in the neighborhood of 275-285 seats in a typical mixed configuration.

EWR-HKG is 7009nm, great circle. Nobody is suggesting the Dash 10 will be flying stage lengths of 8000nm+. Such ULH flying will be the province of the 787-9, if at all.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:07 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 17):
with a 7000nm sector being comfortably within the aircraft's range with a profitable load.

I am afraid you are to optimistic. Boeing has given an official information about the 787-10, not even there do they give the figure 7000nm without a caveat, a nominal 300 pax cabin (please note the word nominal = lighter then any realistic cabin), with a 323 pax cabin and load they say 6800nm, please note once again it is a show room aircraft with a show room cabin. In reality you will loose at least 1 hour of fuel in a realistic cabin, then you loose another hour in water, catering, cargo tares, saftey equipment and optional avionicas, a real crew (which is more then a regulatory crew) and the company rules about route margin for airframe and engine deterioration.

At the end of the day you have something like 6000nm range with no headwind, not 7000nm. This is not picking on the 787-10, when SAS showed it's new A350-900 it had a real usefull range of 7000nm, not the shoowroom 8100nm.
Non French in France
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:12 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 21):
Why, then, would Boeing advertise New York to Hong Kong as a typical city pair for the 787-10?

Because it's marketing. The 787-10 can fly from New York to Hong Kong in the typical 3-class Boeing configuration. So marketing says "route is 7000nm, we have 7000nm so 1+1 = 2". However as said, there is no room for headwinds, no room for extra cargo (what if you want an extra bag), no water and drinks etc. Cabin configurations in the real world are heavier thus the 787-10 with 323 pax won't make a 7000nm trip.

My point was, to make a 7000nm trip, you will have to remove some seats. And you have given the answer by yourself already:

Quoting codc10 (Reply 21):
In practice, the 787-10 will likely be somewhere in the neighborhood of 275-285 seats in a typical mixed configuration.

We might see the 78J flying New York to Hong Kong but it won't have 323 seats. Around 35-40 less seats might give a 7000nm route more comfort but even that I'm not 100% sure about. Some users here on the forum (ferpe, sunrisevalley) can give you some good payload charts if you would ask them.

[Edited 2013-08-19 14:14:03]
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:20 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 21):
Why, then, would Boeing advertise New York to Hong Kong as a typical city pair for the 787-10?

That is called marketing and aircraft selling, A and B do it exactly alike and everyone in the industry knows you have to shave of about 10-15% of their claims. The nice things about the showroom range facts they give is that they are calculated with a rather strict set of rules (strict artificial rules which are not real life conform), this means one can backtrack on these calculations and then calculate forward again to a realistic performance. The only thing which is not very much the same between A and B is how they calculate the cabins, B adheres to an old standard called ICA, A does not, they claim they do more modern realistic cabins. I don't know what is best, with B you know their cabin follows a old rule book and you can back calculate, with A they have the rule book.
Non French in France
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:25 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 22):
At the end of the day you have something like 6000nm range with no headwind, not 7000nm. This is not picking on the 787-10, when SAS showed it's new A350-900 it had a real usefull range of 7000nm, not the shoowroom 8100nm.

  

Just FYI, here is the map:

http://oi43.tinypic.com/s3d6xe.jpg

This is the difference between a realistic cabin (308 pax, 7000nm) versus a marketing cabin (314 pax, 8100nm). You need a comfortable 8000nm aircraft to fly 7000nm.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
alaskan9974
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:06 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:28 pm

Will we see any long term domestic use for the 787? UA runs their 76 and 77's to Hawaii in domestic config, with some in the 3 class configuration. Will these eventually be replaced by 78's, or downsized to 75 and 738's?
 
codc10
Posts: 1750
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:30 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 23):
Because it's marketing. The 787-10 can fly from New York to Hong Kong in the typical 3-class Boeing configuration. So marketing says "route is 7000nm, we have 7000nm so 1+1 = 2". However as said, there is no room for headwinds, no room for extra cargo (what if you want an extra bag), no water and drinks etc. Cabin configurations in the real world are heavier thus the 787-10 with 323 pax won't make a 7000nm trip.

I don't think you understand my point. The 7000nm figure is not derived from the aircraft's technical specifications (not yet available), but rather from marketing materials intended to demonstrate the aircraft's typical mission capabilities. You cannot reliably presume that the aircraft will be incapable of HKG-NYC at this point, absent any detailed technical characteristics of the model.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 23):
We might see the 78J flying New York to Hong Kong but it won't have 323 seats.

Boeing arrives at the 323 seat figure with 18 F seats arranged 2-2-2 at 61" pitch, 58 C 2-3-2 at 39" pitch, 247 Y 3-3-3 at 32" pitch and 27 Y at 31" pitch. In this day and age, that configuration would be extremely high density and I agree that it would not result in optimal range.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:46 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 27):
I don't think you understand my point.

I'm sure I understand your point.

Quoting codc10 (Reply 27):
The 7000nm figure is not derived from the aircraft's technical specifications (not yet available)

What do you mean with the technical specifications are not yet available, they are listed on the Boeing website.

Quoting codc10 (Reply 27):
but rather from marketing materials intended to demonstrate the aircraft's typical mission capabilities.

Yes the 7000nm figure is based on marketing but the MTOW and fuel capacity are not. Those are real numbers. So about the range, marketing is always very, very optimistic about their figures meaning the number in the real world will be lower. You can't fly 7000nm with 323 pax, which was my point.

Quoting codc10 (Reply 27):
You cannot reliably presume that the aircraft will be incapable of HKG-NYC at this point, absent any detailed technical characteristics of the model.

I only said it is incapable of HKG-NYC with 323 pax.

Based on the technical information given by Boeing and piano-x numbers, it is perfectly possible to predict what kind of payload the 78J will be able to haul.

[Edited 2013-08-19 14:48:35]
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:58 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 28):
Based on the technical information given by Boeing and piano-x numbers, it is perfectly possible to predict what kind of payload the 78J will be able to haul.

What is a 78J?
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1865
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:01 pm

UA won't have an F cabin more than 12 I'd guess. Add in about 60 C class then roughly 114 Y+ 114 Y gives you an even 300 and even that may be denser than UA will configure the 787-10.
 
User avatar
flylku
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:44 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:03 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 6):
that passengers are and will have to put up with uncomfortable flights in the name of profit -

It is not profit, it is consumers' unwillingness to pay for comfort. Every cubic centimeter and kilogram has a cost. The airlines would sell you more of both, but consumers do not care about seat pitch and width ... they don't even bother to get educated on the differences between carriers and aircraft. They simply go online and find the lowest price from A to B.
...are we there yet?
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:06 pm

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
Continental was taking 772's up until, what, 2008? 2009? Whereas UA's 763s are a bit older, and for some of them, 'tis time to go.

Wrong. Most of CO's 777s were delivered between 1998-2000. They are around the same age as UA's oldest. They took maybe one or two deliveries in 2006-2007.

UA's 763s are going to have to stay until the new deliveries come in. There is just not enough slack in the overall fleet.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:12 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 32):
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
Continental was taking 772's up until, what, 2008? 2009? Whereas UA's 763s are a bit older, and for some of them, 'tis time to go.

Wrong. Most of CO's 777s were delivered between 1998-2000. They are around the same age as UA's oldest. They took maybe one or two deliveries in 2006-2007.

The last CO 777 delivery was 2010. There were only 4 delivered in the 2007-2010 timeframe. The other 18 were in the 1998-2002 range. Most of the 777-200ERs for UA and CO were delivered about the same time. The baseline 777-200s at UA are older.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:26 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 6):
If seat width did not matter then the XWB concept will fail (perhaps it will - who knows).

Airlines are buying the A380 and A350 not because they are more comfortable than the 747 and the 777, but because they're more efficient. If it was just about seat comfort, they'd be buying the 777 instead of the A350 because the 777 is more comfortable at nine-abreast.



Quoting parapente (Reply 6):
I do accept that it is "the way things are going", that passengers are and will have to put up with uncomfortable flights in the name of profit - because they will.But it is a meaningful loss to consumers- no doubt about that (IMHO anyway).

With the Internet removing price opacity, airlines have to compete on price in every class of service, but the real battle is in Economy because that is what the most price-conscious customers book. As such, Economy class service continues to decline (it is only a matter of time, IMO, before competition from LCCs will see the European and Asian Tier One characters reduce their Economy class product to the level of North American carriers) and airlines are seeking "profit" by offering a Premium Economy product similar in style (and pricing premium) to early Business Class offerings.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:58 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 29):
What is a 78J?

It means 787-10. The J is the 10th letter in the alphabet so 78J is a shortcut.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4953
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Tue Aug 20, 2013 12:29 am

All the to and fro on the 787-10 and JFK-HKG needs as much some informed input as can be gathered together. As background the airlines timetable it as a 16hr sector. From Flightaware you can get the airways distance for each flight which can vary by as much as 200nm. A mean distance is about 7350nm.
With the assistance of competent others I have a pretty close simulation of the 787-10 in Piano-X. It verifies what Boeing is saying 300 to 323 passengers , 6800 to 7100nm as max passenger loads. Sure there are 15hr days which would make the 300 passengers at 7100nm work but the airlines are not figuring too many of them since their timetables don't reflect it.
A and B can put out all the marketing stuff they wish , the airlines know better and take no notice of it.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5629
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:19 am

Arent UA routes like EWR-HKG, ORD-HKG, LAX-SYD what the A351 is being bought for ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
parapente
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:55 am

Reply 34 Stitch.
I do not argue with this trend towards packing more Y class people in. If you can fill 'em then you make more money (if you don't you just lift additional weight of course - it is a ballance).
My point is why on earth would Airbus launch 2 new aircraft (380 and 350) based on wider cabins/ seats in Y? Hell they are even using it as the central platform of their marketing - The XWB ! Even their 320 and 330 products offer these wider seats (18in Vs 17/17.5 Boeing ).
Have they got it all wrong? If so they are in for a rough time cos sure as hell you cannot change the fuse diameter!
Or is it that they are one step ahead and see the "new black" as 16.5ins? That allows them to add an extra seat to both the 380 and the 350 width wise.
Right now they appear to be pitching the additional comfort that XWide type fuses (across their whole range) bring.Perhaps this will change?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:59 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 38):
My point is why on earth would Airbus launch 2 new aircraft (380 and 350) based on wider cabins/ seats in Y?

Perhaps Boeing's design philosophy is to offer customers the option of more comfort (with fewer, wider seats) or better economics (with more, narrower seats) where Airbus believes "one size fits all" and picks a middle ground between comfort and economics.



Quoting parapente (Reply 38):
Have they got it all wrong?

I think that sales of the A320, A330, A350, 737, 777 and 787 families conclusively prove that neither OEM has gotten it "all wrong", but it does also seem to imply that fuselage width is not a major factor in an airline's determination of what to order nor a passenger's determination in what to book on.

After all, some argue that the wider fuselage of the 777-200ER helped it defeat the A340-300 in the marketplace, yet fail to notice that said wider fuselage didn't do much of anything to help the 777-200 against the A330-300.  
 
VC10er
Posts: 2188
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:55 pm

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 9):
Quoting codc10 (Reply 13):

Just to confirm: United is in the process of new Global First Seat and new Business First seats? And they should arrive on the 787-9? and/or on 787-10, A350?

I just flew yesterday IAD to GRU on a 3 class UA 777. In a rear seat (which I actually like) and I looked around at the condition of the airplane interior and I swear it looked modern, clean and no where near ready for the desert - but from inside. I know the reason to retire an ac is not based on the interior cabin.

Yes, the F and J seat on either sUA or sCO are a bit yesterday - but not seriously bad. I haven't flown a 787 yet   but I assume it will be a big upgrade from the 777 I was on even if UA has kept up the old interiors well.

Exciting!
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
 
codc10
Posts: 1750
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:01 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 28):
What do you mean with the technical specifications are not yet available, they are listed on the Boeing website.

Show me. I don't see them here.

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/787family/specs.page?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:11 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 41):
Show me. I don't see them here.

That website is out-dated. You should use http://www.newairplane.com/787/787-10_announcement/ (and click on characteristics).
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
codc10
Posts: 1750
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:00 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 42):


That's exactly what I was looking at.... i.e., a marketing site, which also directly references HKG-NYC as a typical city pair. To date, Boeing has not released any detailed technical specs, therefore any proclamation relative to the aircraft's particular capabilities are mostly speculative.
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:17 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 43):
That's exactly what I was looking at.... i.e., a marketing site, which also directly references HKG-NYC as a typical city pair. To date, Boeing has not released any detailed technical specs, therefore any proclamation relative to the aircraft's particular capabilities are mostly speculative.

There are a few details on the "characteristics" page. In addition, with the more detailed information available on the 788/789 it is possible for KarelXWB and Ferpe to extrapolate some pretty accurate conclusions. I think they will have their day in the sun and you will eat crow when the "official" numbers come out.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:23 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 43):
Boeing has not released any detailed technical specs, therefore any proclamation relative to the aircraft's particular capabilities are mostly speculative.

The 787-10 was launched during the Paris airshow, the primary specs can be found here:

http://www.boeing.com/paris2013/pdf/...win-Aisle_development_briefing.pdf

To make life a bit easier, here is the particular slide:

http://oi44.tinypic.com/vympoh.jpg

It will have the same MTOW as to 787-9, and the same fuel capacity too, meaning the range will be reduced. You cannot fly the same distance with a bigger airplane (heavier) with more 40 seats (more weight) and the same MTOW. The design range of the 787-9 is 8500nm versus 7000nm for the 787-10.

Quoting codc10 (Reply 43):
marketing site

Then you should agree about marketing always being optimistic, thus the 7000nm range is optimistic too. As explained by others, you should cut off around 1000nm of the design range, so we are at 6000nm baseline. An 280-seat 78J may be able to reach 6400-6500nm.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
codc10
Posts: 1750
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:38 pm

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 44):
I think they will have their day in the sun and you will eat crow when the "official" numbers come out.

I could not possibly care less about eating crow!   I don't really have a dog in the fight anyway.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 45):

Fair enough. It just seemed incongruous, to me, that Boeing would present a 7000nm range and then advertise a typical city pair as NYC-HKG, a route in excess of that number. Therefore, it seemed to me that 7k figure was an effective, not max range. Doesn't mean much to me, regardless, but I'll stand behind my logic, not necessarily the facts underlying it!
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:06 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 46):
Fair enough. It just seemed incongruous, to me, that Boeing would present a 7000nm range and then advertise a typical city pair as NYC-HKG, a route in excess of that number. Therefore, it seemed to me that 7k figure was an effective, not max range. Doesn't mean much to me, regardless, but I'll stand behind my logic, not necessarily the facts underlying it!

Fair enough codc10, I think one needs the kind of eye opener that the SAS slide on the A359 showed and one needs to see it a couple of times to really appreciate how much marketing there is in those range and city-pair slides that both OEMs show (none is better then the other!).

I got a slide from an internal presentation from one of the worlds most respected airlines (it was in confidence therefore I can not show it here), it showed the real effective payload range chart for the 330, 787, 350, 777, the usual suspects for long haul. It was a sobering experience, they all had more then 1000nm cut from their spec range due to real cabins, real crews and real operational reserves. Actually the NYC-HKG leg was given as an example for the shown frames, the 787-9 which has a 1000nm longer range then the -10 (they both have the same MTOW but the -10 weights 8t more and has longer fuse = higher drag) could get 165 pax+bags over that distance with their normal wind forecast, no cargo!
Non French in France
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:30 pm

In support of ferpe's comments above, the 777-300ER is one of the most capable planes out there, yet at it's design range of 7800nm it's payload is 35 tons - half of it's rated Maximum Structural Payload (which it can lift only about 5800nm). To put that into perspective, 35t is the Maximum Structural Payload of an A300B4-101.

[Edited 2013-08-21 11:33:21]
 
codc10
Posts: 1750
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER

Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:19 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 47):
Fair enough codc10, I think one needs the kind of eye opener that the SAS slide on the A359 showed and one needs to see it a couple of times to really appreciate how much marketing there is in those range and city-pair slides that both OEMs show (none is better then the other!).


I want to make it very clear that I thoroughly understand the spread between max range and effective range and the various factors which impact/limit an aircraft's range, and also that marketing promies often have very little relevance on how the aircraft will perform in service and otherwise (sometimes it goes both ways). Part of what I do for a living involves review and application of performance specs, so I understand the way it works.

What I also understand is that the type of detailed performance characteristics that I rely on are not yet available for the 787-10 variant. A lot of performance targets, projections and other proposals are widely circulated, but hardly reliable as compared to the type of information available for in-service aircraft, whereby we can make far more reliable estimates. Marketing slides (proprietary or public), pictorial range charts and blanket rules like "shave 1000nm off advertised range" are hardly scientific. I'd also note that every step of this long-winded discussion, I have couched my assertions in this very point: that we really do not know for sure the precise performance characteristics of the aircraft, which matters for marginal routes such as HKG-NYC.

Anyway, the book is not yet out on this airplane. I never made any claims that this aircraft will definitely do something that others say it cannot, as when it comes to aviation, I will not deal in absolutes.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, alex0easy, AsiaTravel, dfwjim1, Dublinspotter, flyDTW1992, Google [Bot], KarelXWB, qf789, SoJo, speedbored, Tewks, Texan101, XLA2008 and 192 guests